Atomic structure stability, and the origin of elementary particles mass
Einstein’s general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics are fundamentally incompatible, which has prompted over 30 years of work in string theory and quantum gravity. Not only Einstein’s theory does not work on the quantum scale; it does not work on the scale of galactic clusters either.
Elementary gravity, in other words, simply means quantum gravity. However, I need to make a small distinction between quantum gravity as the whole phenomenon, and elementary gravity as specifically pertaining to gravity generated by stand-alone elementary particles.
In general, for quantum gravity, or quantum antigravity, to be generated naturally, or artificially, we need the following 3 components properly combined, oriented, and tuned:
The above conditions perfectly obtain in the case of atoms, specifically because what is crucial is that we need an “asymmetric capacitor” configuration, i.e. an inhomogeneous charge density distribution (and electric dipole moment).
Would gravity be also generated by elementary particles?
If we take a look at the above schematics of an electron it is clear that the above principle seems to apply. However, electron seems to be an electric monopole. Nevertheless, electron may also have its electric dipole moment:
Because it seems that electron’s electric dipole moment may not be a permanent property, let’s assume electron to be strictly an electric monopole.
If we take a conceptual look at a hydrogen atom from outside, all we will see is an electron cloud. If we take a conceptual look at a single electron from outside, we will also see electron as a smaller cloud (uncertainty principle), too.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that because electron has a negative charge, angular momentum (spin) and magnetic moment, it generates gravity.
Specifically, it generates attractive gravity, because its outer “shell” is negatively charged, like in the case of atoms of matter. Of course, being a monopole, it does not have any inner positively charged “shell” or “electrode”, but effectively, from outside, it looks like an electron “cloud” of a hydrogen atom, especially considering that it might have its electric dipole moment anyway.
In the frame of a simple and intuitive approach, using Newton’s second law, we obtain in a covariant form the dynamical equation of motion of an extended charged particle, subject to the Lorentz’s procedure with retarded fields. It is shown that the electron mass has a complete electromagnetic origin:
By analogy, a proton would also generate gravity, albeit the repulsive one (antigravity), in virtue of having its mono-“outer” shell charged positively.
And antiproton would generate attractive gravity. That explains the results of gravity-antiproton experiments at CERN. The expectation was that antiproton would antigravitate. And it did not, exactly as per my hypothesis. I imagine that on the assumption that protons would naturally gravitate, like regular matter, there was no experiments to verify it.
According to my hypothesis, as opposed to antiprotons, protons would actually antigravitate. That is another testable prediction of my hypothesis that can be experimentally verified at CERN.
All that may seem like a surprise at first, because atoms of matter generate only attractive gravity, and anti-atoms of anti-matter generate only repulsive gravity. But if I am correct, this surprise would perfectly explain the stability of the atomic structure by explaining the nature of the strong nuclear force, and the origin of elementary particles mass.
If an electron can generate gravity, then it is said to have “gravitational mass”, and from this we would conclude the existence of its inertial mass.
What if gravity does not originate from inertial mass? What if there is no inertial mass at all? What if there is only (attractive and repulsive) gravity forces, due to the above 3 components properly combined, oriented, and tuned?
” It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing, a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind.” — Albert Einstein
” Even masses at rest have an energy inherent to them. You’ve learned about all types of energies, including mechanical energy, chemical energy, electrical energy, as well as kinetic energy. These are all energies inherent to moving or reacting objects, and these forms of energy can be used to do work, such as run an engine, power a light bulb, or grind grain into flour. But even plain, old, regular mass at rest has energy inherent to it: a tremendous amount of energy. This carries with it a tremendous implication: that gravitation, which works between any two masses in the Universe in Newton’s picture, should also work based off of energy, which is equivalent to mass.” — Ethan Siegel
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC ORIGIN OF INERTIA
The inertia force has remained a mystery ever since it was described by Newton, and up until now there has been no straightforward clear explanation for it.
Newton’s first law, the law of inertia, states that a body remains at rest or in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by a force. From Newton’s second law of motion we know that, to overcome inertia, the applied force has to have the magnitude of the inertia force. So, despite knowing that for every action (acceleration) there is a reaction (inertia) as stated by the Newton’s third law, these two forces do not cancel each other since velocity has to change for the effect to take place due to the retarded fields emanating from an accelerated charge. In the Lagrangian formalism of a charged particle the generalized (canonical) momentum must be p=mv+qA. Whenever the particle is not subject to an external force, it is p rather than mv that is conserved. Maxwell advocated in 1865 that the vector potential could be seen as a stored momentum per unit charge, and Thomson in 1904 interpreted A as a field momentum per unit charge. More recently, Mead (1997) derived standard results of electromagnetic theory of the direct interaction of macroscopic quantum systems assuming solely the Einstein-de Broglie relations, the discrete nature of charge, the Green’s function for the vector potential, and the continuity of the wave function – without any reference to Maxwell’s equations. Holding an opposite view are Heaviside and Hertz who envisaged the vector potential merely as an auxiliary artifact to computation. In this paper inertia is discussed in terms of the “potential momentum”, or vector potential created by the particle, as the primary source of inertia:
” The concept of mass, with the concept of gravitational mass identified with the concept of inertial mass, is quantified and defined by gravitational phenomenology. Therefore, on purely logical grounds, the concept of mass so defined cannot then be used in the theories of physics as an explanation of the very phenomenology used to define and quantify it.” — W.F. Heinrich, QuantumGravity.ca
If we are correct, then in general, for the force of gravity, or antigravity, to be generated naturally, or artificially, we only need the following 3 components properly combined, oriented, and tuned:
then the effective gravitational “mass” would simply be nothing more than a measure of the strength of the force of gravity, without any need to refer to purported “inertial mass” as a basic, unchanging, inherent property of matter. That would instantly eliminate the need for any Dark matter around galaxies. Apparently, at the present rate of angular velocity, there doesn’t seems to be enough mass in a galaxy to keep it from spiraling out of control. If I am correct, the faster a galaxy spins the stronger its angular momentum, and as a result the stronger the force of gravity that galaxy generates which keeps it together. In this way a galaxy would be a self-regulating system. If the above seems too far out, then let’s consider particle-wave duality:
If elementary particles are said to have an inherent property of inertial mass, then what happens to this inertial mass when we consider particle as a wave? Does this localized inertial mass disappear?
Well, it becomes equivalent of waves’ energy. Then, what if “inertial mass” of a particle is always simply energy, precisely the energy needed to generate the force of gravity? In this case the concept of “negative mass” producing repulsive gravity would make much more sense. It is hard to imagine negative scalar mass, but quite easy to imagine negative gravitational “mass”, where such “mass” is essentially identical with the force (vector) of gravity (two semantic sides of the same coin).
In the following illustration what makes gravitational mass (force) “positive”, or “negative”, is merely orientation of B-B vectors that always point from negative to positive electric charge, like the electric dipole moment:
So, electron’s electric energy, its magnetic energy, and the energy related to its angular momentum, produce force of gravity and hence electron is said to have “gravitational mass” (two semantic sides of the same coin) that is essentially identical with the force of gravity. No scalar “inertial mass” is needed to produce gravity, which does not mean that there is no inertia, of course. For the same reason that gravity does not originate from inertial mass, the inertia does not stem from “inertial mass”, either.
STABILITY DUE TO BALANCE
It seems that the stability of atomic structure is explained much better than the dynamic stability of the Solar system.
If we are correct, the stability of atomic structure can be explained as a balance of electric, magnetic, gravity & antigravity forces among all elementary particles composing an atom, without resorting to the strong nuclear force, similar to the dynamic stability of the Solar system being due to the balance of gravity and antigravity forces of the Sun, planets, and moons.
Let’s see how it could hypothetically work. Perhaps we would be able to explain how particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should not exist (see Ghost in the atom). They are called tetraneutrons: four neutrons that are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics.
Francisco Miguel Marquès and colleagues at the Ganil accelerator in Caen are now gearing up to do it again. If they succeed, these clusters may oblige us to rethink the forces that hold atomic nuclei together.
The team fired beryllium nuclei at a small carbon target and analysed the debris that shot into surrounding particle detectors. They expected to see evidence for four separate neutrons hitting their detectors. Instead the Ganil team found just one flash of light in one detector. And the energy of this flash suggested that four neutrons were arriving together at the detector. Of course, their finding could have been an accident: four neutrons might just have arrived in the same place at the same time by coincidence. But that’s ridiculously improbable.
Not as improbable as tetraneutrons, some might say, because in the standard model of particle physics tetraneutrons simply can’t exist. According to the Pauli exclusion principle, not even two protons or neutrons in the same system can have identical quantum properties. In fact, the strong nuclear force that would hold them together is tuned in such a way that it can’t even hold two lone neutrons together, let alone four.